Jump to content


Photo

Naval Unit Ideas


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#21 spartan 117

spartan 117

    zealot

  • Project Team
  • 377 posts
  • Location:London, England
  • Projects:doing maps and missions together with jsmooth13 and 00nobody
  •  mapper

Posted 10 January 2006 - 05:22 PM

ok, i'm sorry for that in advance cause this will cause many people to write off topic things i guess.

usa surely has a fleet that kicks ass, but u gotta stop underestimating china. for example this:

Mao Zedong Aircraft Carrier- just a Chinese version of Aicraft Carrier. Has smaller capacity than American (If US can hold 20, Chinese should carry 10)

this isn't ok, china hs got an airforce, and a big one s well, and i'm sure they'll be able to keep up with the us 20 plane carriers, if u look at it in the game.
(i know that there won't be aircraft carriers, but just as example, of you underestimating china)

now my ideas:

i like the ideas, u posted about china navy, and i agree with the idea of giving gla a demo boat.

i know that some people will be attacking me cause i said once more something about china being stronger or t least as strong as the usa but u gotta keep in mind, that u a re opening a whole new chapter in this game. i don't think u were planning to have very small maps, to use the navy on. also u gotta keep the balance as no ground unit will be able to take part in the fighting unless there's a ship next to the shore.

all i'm saying is, everybody must have a strong navy cause who rules the sea, has the ability to bombard 30 miles into the inland as well.

here another opinion : giveevery side coastal batteries. like in battlefield 1942
but a little stronger and more modern, or anyone played splinter cell 3. u could turn up with an anti ship bunker, that launchea anti ship missiles.

Edited by spartan 117, 10 January 2006 - 05:23 PM.

Posted Image

#22 Thunder_Head

Thunder_Head

    title available

  • Members
  • 412 posts
  • Location:Thailand
  • Projects:none(seriously)

Posted 10 January 2006 - 07:38 PM

Dude, I'm not underestimating China but I want to keep it balance due to a fact that MIG gives more damage than American Raptors
Fun fact:
1) Named after the Osean AWACS in Ace combat 5
2) The anime sith lord
3) Anakin is the best Jedi
4) His favorite faction in SW:Empire at war is the Galactic Empire
5) Always change signature

#23 Guest_Jordi_*

Guest_Jordi_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2006 - 09:56 PM

i think that the navel yard should have a spiecl wepon that can fire a heat seeken missle that goes :umad:

O HI STEVEN

#24 00 Nobody

00 Nobody

    Founder of 00 Nobody Maps

  • Members
  • 1,586 posts
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Projects:00 Nobody Maps
  •  Mapper and Founder of 00 Nobody Maps

Posted 10 January 2006 - 11:23 PM

? That makes less sense than most the things in when idiots attack. :umad:
00 Nobody Maps and Missions
Desert Legends RPG C&C's ONLY
Desert Doorway Defenders
Desert Corps.
BattleTanx
Operation: The Dragon's Den
Construct additional pylons. No, seriously. The power's out. Those power lines are overloaded. WE NEED MOAR PYLONS!

#25 ZeroSamuraiX

ZeroSamuraiX

    ZSX

  • Members
  • 1,091 posts
  • Location:New York, New York
  • Projects:Her
  •  The last spam fighter

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:30 AM

sucks, no aircraft carriers

but i like Bismarks idea
No heat no happiness
Posted Image

#26 wolfshadow

wolfshadow

    title available

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 05:07 AM

Personally, I would like to see more realistic scaled units used. Boghammer gunboats for GLA..Mebbe a Jetski with variable attacker, suicide bomber/rocket soldier/terroist . KOMAR/ OSA II sized Missles corvettes for China... US Should get a sub, and mebbe an armed hovercraft. Hovercraft could be stealthy and armed with a chaingun and hellfire missiles.

#27 sath

sath

    Death is here!

  • Members
  • 347 posts
  • Location:A stasis tomb (My house)
  •  runabout boy

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:31 PM

i think that the navel yard should have a spiecl wepon that can fire a heat seeken missle that goes  :huh:

O HI STEVEN

View Post


ooook i think jordi has had his... sugar foods (oh cr*p) run when this happens i should know after getting chased around the house when he came over for a while and had been consuming large quantitys of sugary chocolate food stuffs like mars bar but when he's not hyper he's actually really good at ZH without help from cheats or trainers and is familiar with what players which play ZH online do to people who have JUST joined...

subs remind me of a gen power which wasn't included which involved off map launched SLBM missles which are comprised of lots of low damage miniture versions of the tomhawk missles which rain down like the artillery gen power

the gla jetski thing is a good idea because it would be more or less an aqua version of the combat cycle and i can imagine a terrorist on a jetski (wearing his life jacket which is totally uneeded since he's gonna blow himself up and does not intend to live on after anyway so if he fell in the water and died he would be equivelant of a sea mine) yeah! sea mines that would be good since it looks like PR might be getting a big navy and i think sea mines would be in order.

maybe more supplys could be sifted from fishing with chinook nets or maybe china could have boats or amphibious supply trucks (can only carry fish) and gla workers and militia workers would zip along on motor boats or jetskis.
When someone opens up a can of kick butt, then the best thing to do is to open up a can of baked beans

Remember! If you smoke weed you’ll get high, if you smoke a reed you would die

Apparently Donkeys kill more people every year than air-plane crashes

#28 spartan 117

spartan 117

    zealot

  • Project Team
  • 377 posts
  • Location:London, England
  • Projects:doing maps and missions together with jsmooth13 and 00nobody
  •  mapper

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:39 PM

u guys gotta really think about the navy.

u will have to make every side as strong as the other on the sea, and that's kinda stupid, if u consider gla.
u cannot give one specific side the advantage of being able to control the sea with no trouble.

That makes less sense than most the things in when idiots attack


what do u mean

Edited by spartan 117, 11 January 2006 - 04:40 PM.

Posted Image

#29 Vanguard

Vanguard

    Modding Guru

  • Hosted
  • 2,139 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Projects:Project Raptor
  •  Stand Down Sir!

Posted 11 January 2006 - 06:31 PM

GLA will have the weakest of all the naval units, but will have better speed, and a better selection, China will have the strongest naval units, but will fire slower, and cost more, the US will have a medium ranged navy, they will have the best stuff all around (as in the ratio of armor to speed), but will cost more, build slower, and will require US buildings to build most of their ships, unlike the other sides, they might even need a science for their more powerful stuff. The militia will have the ability to trade with naval yards owned by other Militia Allies if I can get it to work, via a freighter system. They will also have a navy as of yet, not sure what, but they will have some of the larger naval vessels, such as Tankers and stuff, tankers are probably going to be their naval transports, not really sure yet.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

- Vanguard

#30 7th_Panzer

7th_Panzer

    Crushing opponents since 1980.

  • Project Team
  • 2,341 posts
  • Location:Sufugnoff
  • Projects:War Games
  •  Chief Wargames Referee

Posted 11 January 2006 - 09:14 PM

As for the strengths of navies and and which is best, you must ask: best at what?

The American Navy is designed to operate far from its anchorages and support the merchant marine. The Chinese navy is designed to support the nation's army, and since China has direct access to only one ocean, while the Americans three, the Chinese obviously would not put as much investment in their naval resources as the Americans.
Posted Image

- "7th 'I'm not evil!' Panzer

#31 link.the.first

link.the.first

    Supreme commander

  • Project Team
  • 3,577 posts
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
  •  You want a piece of me boy?

Posted 12 January 2006 - 12:14 AM

Good point Panzer. That would give China some incredibly slow, heavy, and powerful ships since they aren't designed to go far, and the USA some slightly weaker ones with better speed and weapon range. Perfect for their styles anyway.

Vanguard: Anyway to code a carrier like I said about coding the planes as weapons instead of planes? I know you can code missiles to be shot down, can you use that code here?
Posted Image

#32 Bob

Bob

    Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

  • Project Team
  • 1,252 posts
  • Location:The country music capital - Nashville TN, U.S.A.
  • Projects:Project Raptor, ZH Maps
  •  "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Posted 12 January 2006 - 01:23 AM

GLA will have the weakest of all the naval units, but will have better speed, and a better selection, China will have the strongest naval units, but will fire slower, and cost more, the US will have a medium ranged navy, they will have the best stuff all around (as in the ratio of armor to speed), but will cost more, build slower, and will require US buildings to build most of their ships, unlike the other sides, they might even need a science for their more powerful stuff. The militia will have the ability to trade with naval yards owned by other Militia Allies if I can get it to work, via a freighter system. They will also have a navy as of yet, not sure what, but they will have some of the larger naval vessels, such as Tankers and stuff, tankers are probably going to be their naval transports, not really sure yet.

View Post


I like the sound of that. Especially the Militia freighters and such.

Two other ideas that caught my attention:

I think spartan117 has a good idea with the coastal batteries idea. Something very strong against ships, and able to punch through ship armor relatively quickly. This would make a very nice tech weapon.

And Thunder Head's idea for the demo general. A suicide explosive boats for every boat on his side. Taking that idea a step further, the Toxin general could have an anthrax gamma suicide boats, and the Stealth general could have some sort of limited stealth. IDK, perhaps disguised boats or something.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

- Bob

Posted Image

#33 Jsmooth13

Jsmooth13

    title available

  • Members
  • 2,843 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 January 2006 - 01:53 AM

We wouldn't have had neither, panzer, unless we hadn't taken such an isolationist stance in the beginning, back then there was no need for a big army because there was no way for the usa to get invaded unless through the ocean... this is where it came from, not because we had boardered two oceans and a gulf

#34 7th_Panzer

7th_Panzer

    Crushing opponents since 1980.

  • Project Team
  • 2,341 posts
  • Location:Sufugnoff
  • Projects:War Games
  •  Chief Wargames Referee

Posted 12 January 2006 - 02:30 AM

I do not understand, Jsmooth. Do you mean that the US has a navy to attack an enemy's navy carrying invasion troops?
Posted Image

- "7th 'I'm not evil!' Panzer

#35 Jsmooth13

Jsmooth13

    title available

  • Members
  • 2,843 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 January 2006 - 02:59 AM

originally like back in the 1800s that was our main defense spending, was to protect us from other nations

#36 Bob

Bob

    Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

  • Project Team
  • 1,252 posts
  • Location:The country music capital - Nashville TN, U.S.A.
  • Projects:Project Raptor, ZH Maps
  •  "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Posted 12 January 2006 - 08:00 AM

Just throwing this out as a FYI news for those interested in U.S. Navy Ships.

Exerpts from a U.S. Department of Defense News Release:

Navy Commissions Amphibious Transport Dock Ship San Antonio.

"The U.S. Navy will commission the USS San Antonio, lead ship of the latest class of amphibious ships, at 11 a.m. CDT, Jan. 14, 2006, at Naval Station Ingleside, Texas.

Former President George H. W. Bush will deliver the ceremony’s principal address. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will serve as the ship’s sponsor and will give the first order to "Man our ship and bring her to life!"

Capt. Jonathan M. Padfield of Salt Lake City, Utah, is the ship’s first commanding officer and will lead a crew of 360 officers and enlisted personnel. The ship is capable of embarking a landing force of up to 800 Marines.

The USS San Antonio is the lead ship in the Navy’s new LPD 17 class that will serve as the functional replacement of four amphibious ship classes, LPD 4, LSD 36, LST 1179 and LKA 113, that have reached or are nearing the end of their service life.

The ship will provide greatly improved warfighting capabilities including: an advanced command and control suite; increased lift capacity with substantial increases in vehicle and cargo carrying capability; and advanced ship survivability features. The ship supports the Marine Corps "mobility triad," the Landing Craft Air Cushion vehicle, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, making this class a critical element of tomorrow’s amphibious ready groups and expeditionary strike groups.

This expeditionary warship class will be the most survivable amphibious vessel ever put to sea. The ship's automated combat system includes a highly capable sensor suite and weapons that provide a robust self-defense capability. The San Antonio's design reduces its radar cross-section signature by streamlining topside design and incorporating other advanced technologies."

For the full news release visit:
http://www.globalsec...60111-dod01.htm

For pictures, general schematics, and info visit:
http://www.globalsec...ship/lpd-17.htm

Edited by Bob, 12 January 2006 - 08:03 AM.

Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

- Bob

Posted Image

#37 7th_Panzer

7th_Panzer

    Crushing opponents since 1980.

  • Project Team
  • 2,341 posts
  • Location:Sufugnoff
  • Projects:War Games
  •  Chief Wargames Referee

Posted 12 January 2006 - 10:24 AM

Actually during that time, US defense spending was practically nil. Hence why we very nearly lost the War of 1812. I think that or a better idea how the Navy is used, and would likely be used during a future conflict, see the Second Battle of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean convoy battles of the Second World War.
Posted Image

- "7th 'I'm not evil!' Panzer

#38 link.the.first

link.the.first

    Supreme commander

  • Project Team
  • 3,577 posts
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
  •  You want a piece of me boy?

Posted 12 January 2006 - 12:38 PM

Jsmooth has a point, since Mexico and Canada probably aren't planning on attacking us the only way to reach us is by sea or air. So, we would need a pretty big navy, especially since we have a lot more coastline than most countries to cover.

China wouldn't need as much of a navy, they would have to divide their spending to defend against land-based attacks and sea attacks, but since they have less coastline to cover they don't need as many ships as us.
Posted Image

#39 Vanguard

Vanguard

    Modding Guru

  • Hosted
  • 2,139 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Projects:Project Raptor
  •  Stand Down Sir!

Posted 12 January 2006 - 09:23 PM

No Carrier, coding the jets as weapons isn't going to work as the weapon doesn't pick it's own target, you pick it, the weapon has no way of firing it's weapons without you selecting it and telling it to do so. And that is hardly the perfect way of doing it without errors. Cause then you have to worry about the animations and all the FX when the planes take off aswell, and besides it's to big of a unit anyway.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

- Vanguard

#40 Jsmooth13

Jsmooth13

    title available

  • Members
  • 2,843 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 January 2006 - 09:28 PM

it's alright, we don't Need a ACC, but are you going to size down the ships?? they are a tad bit big




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users